I don't know why, but this one-liner (apropos of not much) struck me as pretty hilarious:
"I have Romney Derangement Syndrome."
Seen in comments here.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
PRESIDENT CLARITY: Victor Davis Hanson: The Great Obama Catharsis. “Barack Obama has done the United States a great, though unforeseen, favor. He has brought to light, as no one else could, many of the pernicious assumptions of our culture from the last half-century. He turned theory and ‘what ifs’ into fact for all America to see, experience, and, yes, suffer through. . . . Had McCain been elected, or had Obama proved a canny Clinton triangulator, we would never have gotten out of the bipartisan rut of massive borrowing, growing government, higher taxes, and unionized public employee regulators. But with Obama as the great liberal deliverer and with the masses scared to death of Him, the next president will inherit an America in catharsis. The future is uncertain, but at least now, after our cauterizing, we have some sort of chance to return to the old principles that might save us.”
Monday, September 19, 2011
Math joke from Anna, the bartender and civil engineering student: an infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one tells the bartender he wants a beer. The second one says he wants half a beer. The third one says he wants a fourth of a beer. The bartender puts two beers on the bar and says “You guys need to learn your limits.”
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Excellent Charles Hugh Smith piece.
Most of the discussions about boosting hiring and employment are detached from the realities faced by actual small-business employers. Pundits protected by ivory-tower tenure or plump think-tank positions can indulge in the luxury of debating the efficacy of modest tax cuts on hiring, but for those in the trenches of small business, these economic-policy debates are as germaine and valuable as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The reality is that adding an employee is very costly and adds multiple layers of risk. Small business is not going to hire another employee because the employer's share of Social Security taxes is a few hundred dollars less. Adding an employee could, without exaggeration, cost the employer his business and/or his sanity. Think of someone in the ocean with a water-logged life preserver, someone whose head is barely above water. That is the typical small business employer: it won't take much to push him/her under.
Robert F., a small-business employer for 22 years, shares the rarely-addressed point of view of the employer:
I own a security firm in a major Western-U.S. city. I have been an employer for 22 years. What a nightmare it is! Few seem to understand why businesses don't want to hire--here's my perspective.Many non-employers will read this and dismiss it as hyperbole or atypical; those of us who have had burdensome payrolls know it is simply realistic. The issues of high costs and multiple risks are societal and cannot be reduced to econometric quantification; the burdens and entitlements built into the labor market are not fully revealed by statistics.
Once I hire someone, I am party to a relationship that is full of risk. What usually happens is the "check harvesting" situation where just enough work is done to extract a paycheck. I am on the hook for matching Social Security tax, medicare tax, city occupational tax, unemployment tax, federal unemployment tax, workers comp insurance and all the abuse that goes along with that system. I have to withold State and Federal income taxes with ridiculous penalties for late payments. Often I will get served with a garnishment or child support levy for an employee, and I am on the hook for all this. If I fail to withold on a garnishment I become liable to pay the debt.
To take one real-life example of many: after all this, the employee can't get along with others, grows a beard and says it's a religious right, needs weekends off because he goes to church and it's descriminatory for me not to give him time off for his beliefs.... soon I'm looking for a way to fire him. Now the rage begins! I am subject to violence, attacks, retribution, slander-- everything all because the employee won't/can't do the job he accepted.
I have been through terminations where I was threatened with a gun, had to call the cops, etc. The usual take is that the police will take action after the homicide spree is done with. My nice Chrysler car got a cinder block thrown throught the window a few years back (oh, but there's no proof it's the guy I fired one week ago who punched his fist throught the window and had the paramedics haul off out of my office.)
Sure, I've had some great employees too--people who I only have good things to say about. I also paid them every cent I owed them and they often got more than their base pay--bonuses, extras, etc. But I could write another two pages on malicious lawsuits. For example, I promote some guy and a woman is burned up because she didn't get it and "it's discrimination." One guy is gay and other employees tease-- my job to step in and mediate and manage the mess and "This is a hatefull workplace-I'm going to be talking to a lawyer."
If I advertise for a job opening, my office fills up with the angry, over-qualified, alcoholic dead-beats and weed smokers... they all have rights of course and I owe them a job. So, Obama says employers need to hire the uenmployed? Yeah, sure! Sorry if I sound bitter-- this is my last year doing this and then I am going solo/free-lance. While I might earn less, I will have my sanity!
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
FRANK J. FLEMING: AMERICA NEEDS A CONTROL GROUP:
Despite the obvious importance of science, one group of people does everything in pure defiance of scientific methods: politicians. What do politicians do when they think they have a great idea? They just go and implement it. It’s like someone thinking he’s got a cure for cancer and immediately injecting it into everyone he can. That’s a madman, not a scientist. You always have to at least try out your idea on monkeys to make sure it doesn’t kill them.
Were farm subsidies first tried on monkeys? Social Security? Bank bailouts? No, the unscientific politicians went straight to trying all their ideas on humans, and now we have a bunch of bankrupt people instead of harmless bankrupt monkeys.
But the problem with testing political ideas on monkeys is that forcing them to go billions into debt would violate animal-cruelty laws. The only ones we’re allowed to do that to are people.